Darwin naked

Darwin naked

]

Nildo Viana *

 The ideological representative of the so-called "sociobiology", more contemporary expression of "social Darwinism", wrote a book called The Naked Ape (Morris, 1980). The objective of this paper is to do as the child in Andersen's tale, The Emperor's New Clothes, ie reveal that Darwin, as the king is naked. And this is achieved through the Marxist perspective, which brings us to the study of the relationship between the theories of Darwin and his followers and the Marxist theory.

The relationship between Darwin (and Darwinism) and Marxism is much more complex than it seems at first glance. In the area of ​​Marxist influence, the hegemonic and most widespread view is that the two concepts are similar and would be linked to the process of biological evolution while the other would be an expression of social evolution. Darwinism would approach the struggle for survival, the evolution of species, whereas Marxism would address the social changes. Darwin would have produced a theory of evolution would be a supplement and confirmation of Marxist theory and materialist dialectics, serving simultaneously to refute the religious doctrines and creationists and provide a biological basis for the dialectic.

These theories, however, perform a simplification of a complex relationship and only applies to a certain impoverished Marxism, much closer to positivism, evolutionism and metaphysical than the thought of Marx and some of the leading theorists of Marxism. So it becomes important to rescue the debate between Darwin and Marx, and therefore between Darwinism and Marxism to demonstrate the incompatibility between the two concepts and contribute to the resumption of criticism of Darwinism and so re-evaluate the historical significance of the work The Origin of Species, as well as the whole of Darwin's work.

The praise of Darwinism

The idea of ​​compatibility and complement between Marxism and Darwinism stems from the own actions and statements of Marx and Engels. It is well known that Marx sent a letter to Darwin asking him to write a preface to Capital, which was refused [1]. In his written tribute to Marx's funeral, Engels reinforced this by stating: "as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of human historical evolution" (. Cited Fromm, 1983, p 220) . This statement became the key element for claiming to be supporters of Marx's thought conduct Darwinism cheer and play complement your mind between the two conceptions, and this ideology, Marx was the great theorist of social evolution and Darwin's evolution of species.

This was reinforced by the main representatives of the alleged "Marxist orthodoxy" as Kautsky. This discusses the "Darwinian ethics" and emphasizes its great contribution to the understanding of man's origin - not without fuss and without understanding the true core of Darwinian design, as seen in his reference to Espinas, antagonistic to competitive design Darwin, and for Kautsky would be the same - stating that, however, "before Darwin showed his revolutionary theory, there were born the doctrine that also unveil the secret of the moral ideal: Engels doctrine and Marx" (Kautsky, 1980 , p. 69). Here not only is attributed to Darwin a "revolutionary theory" as to be confused with the concept of ethics in Marx and Engels, a colossal mistake, derived from a misunderstanding of both the Darwinian concept as the Marxist.

But Kautsky, after Engels's death, was the great reference of Marxism supposed to be organized in the Second International and that's why their views have influenced generations, and even thinkers with greater intellectual autonomy, as the future Spartacist Franz Mehring and the Austro -marxista Otto Bauer, who will not refute this misconception in understanding the relationship between Marxism and Darwinism (Bauer, 1980; Mehring, 1980).

This was reproduced in the new Marxist orthodoxy dictates established by Lenin and then amplified and reproduced by Stalin and the Third International, with Bolshevisation process of the communist parties. The schemes established under Bolshevik inspiration, as in the Cuban state capitalism, Darwin receives the same glory that the private capitalist countries:

"In the real socialism of today, we find in textbooks of Cuba Biology, the same basic line of the official history of Darwinism Americans. Darwin is praised as 'the great English naturalist who overthrew the idea that species are immutable', created by a God, and that elaborated the principle of natural selection. No allusion is made even to criticism of Marx and Engels "(Marco, 1987, p. 77).

In this sense, what we have is the defense of Darwinism and its allocation of "revolutionary theory", the big "theory of evolution" not questioned and, for some, unquestioned. These theses, in general, would be defended by Marx and Engels. [2] However, things are not that simple and if necessary to establish that the relationship between Marxism and Darwinism is marked by critical positions that will be presented below.

Criticism of Darwinism

The apparent membership of Marx and Engels to Darwin postulated consists of an exaggeration and ignorance of the true position and action of these authors. Marx really considered the possibility of Darwin preface his great work, The Capital? In fact, there are those who say that, but without proper justification. Another version of the story says that Marx read The Origin of Species in 1860 and considered as placed in a letter to Engels, that his work was offering a "natural-historical basis of our design," "despite all its shortcomings." However, despite Marx consider that Darwin brought a certain contribution to the development of understanding of nature - especially the overcoming of teleology in nature - and thus provide critical elements and overcoming conservative ideologies, he was not uncritical in relation to their theses and actually, what he would have done [3] was, according to some, Darwin request authorization to dedicate her second volume of Capital.

This, however, is refuted by others, based on research into the letters received by Marx. What happened actually was a letter from Edward Aveling, Marx's son-requesting Darwin's authorization to dedicate him his work (and not that of Marx) entitled Darwin for Students, anti-religious character, so there was the refusal of the famous naturalist, who forwarded the same to Marx and stood with his correspondence and so there was no reference to what work meant its author, which allowed the established confusion and became the true version of the story until 1975 [4].

Thus, the thesis of Darwin really would be approved by Marx, with reservations, which was possible at the moment due to the context and its possible critical potential [5], but after a second reading, found the problematic aspects of the Origin of Species, the main work of Darwin and the best known. According to Marx, in a letter to Engels:

"Darwin, I am rereading, amuses me when he says applying Malthus's theory in animals and plants, as in Malthus was not kidding apply the theory, including the geometric progression, not to plants and animals, but men . It is remarkable to see how Darwin found in animals and plants his English society with the division of labor, competition, opening new markets, 'inventions' and the 'struggle for existence' of Malthus "(quoted in. Marco, 1987 , pp, 75-76) [6].

Nelio Marco also cites the criticism that Engels performs Darwin in The Dialectics of Nature. In this work, Engels says that until the advent of Darwin's work and idea of ​​harmony in nature prevailed and the same people are now "only see struggle everywhere", being both one-sided and narrow conceptions. According to Engels:

"All of Darwin's theory based on the struggle for life is simply the transfer of the company to the lively nature, Hobbes's theory of bellum omnium contra omnes and even more: the bourgeois theory of free competition and the Malthusian theory of overpopulation. Once carried out this feat (the unconditional justification is still very problematic, especially as regards the Malthusian theory) is very easy to transfer these theories back, passing the natural history to the history of society; and, after all, it is a great ingenuity pretensions, and so, having shown these claims to be eternal laws of society "(Engels, 1985, p. 163).

Engels performs other observations more specific criticisms of Darwin, but here it is just highlight these elements, derived from Marx's arguments in the letter to Engels, as described earlier.

Criticism of Marx and Engels Darwin has two main elements, which are complementary and have the same source: the first element is the Malthusian inspiration of the theses of Darwin, especially the idea of ​​survival of the fittest and the second element is the transposition into the nature of capitalist social relations in consolidation in England at the time of this writing thinker [7].

This criticism is also developed by Anton Pannekoek in his work Marxism and Darwinism, in the early 20th century, as well as some other Marxist thinkers and, however, was forgotten or silenced and, instead, a membership unqualified was produced and He became the truth about Darwinism inside what is called Marxism-Leninism.

The implication of Darwin to Marx's critique makes room to think critically about the history of biology (and the natural sciences in general) and understand the theory of consciousness developed by the author of Capital. So, we will then highlight the theoretical and methodological consequences of Marx's critique and, from this, resume the significance and importance of the Origin of Species and their struggle for survival of the thesis in the development of consciousness of nature and society , which transmit the well to her other work, The Descent of Man.

Marxist analysis of Darwinism

Taking up the main points of Marx's critique of Darwin, we have the following elements: a) Darwin transposes the society of his time to the natural world; b) Darwin was inspired by Malthus to defend his thesis of the struggle for survival. Engels also highlight the way back done by Darwin, that is, once attributed to nature the society characteristics of its time, then make the return path, stating that natural law is manifested also in society (Engels, 1985) [8]. Later, when discussing the work of Pierre Trémaux, Marx assert other disabilities, now more within the own Darwinian argument, referring to the postulate of a casual evolution that is overcome by this other author to emphasize the role of soil in the evolutionary process. The latter aspect has methodological character that highlight later.

Darwin actually transpose the social relations of English society, capitalist, for the natural world is something that has fundamental importance. Darwin presented his theory of evolution from the reproduction in the nature of social division of labor, competition, opening of markets, etc. For Marx's theory of consciousness, consciousness is no more than the conscious self (Marx and Engels, 2002; Viana, 2007) and in this sense, this being expressed their social relationships. However, it is not abstract social relations, but concrete, and humans do not live the same relationships in which common elements in certain places and times, coexist with different elements, mainly arising from the social division of labor and class position individuals.

Darwin expressed the bourgeois consciousness and thus reproduced the bourgeois social relations in his thesis on the evolution (Viana, 2001; Viana, 2003; Marco, 1987), and was attracted by reading reinforced such ideas (Herbert Spencer, Thomas Malthus, etc. ) and only achieved success and that his theory of evolution supplant the other, such as Lamarck, Wallace and Bates, because it produced ideas that corresponded to the society of his time and met the dominant interests (Viana 2003).

It is worth mentioning in this respect the role of competition, which is a structural element of capitalist society. Sociability in capitalist society is dominated by competition and this will be recognized and worked for many researchers. Mannheim (1990) will highlight the play of competition in the sphere of the world of ideas; Wright Mills (1971) will examine the "competitor personality" and others (Viana, 2008) will develop ideas about the importance of competition and its structuring character of capitalist society.

This reveals a basic question: the ideas produced by the natural sciences - as well as any other human cultural production - are social and historical products - should not take a critical perspective, condition for non naturalization of existing social relations - tend to reproduce such relationships, making the process of justification, universalization and naturalization of existing social relations. And this is common in the natural sciences, which means that in addition to technical limitations, financing and interests behind the scientific, it is not "value free" and not "exact", which causes the need for critical and the doubt regarding much of its production.

The inspiration for Malthus (among others) is just another chapter in this story, because the ideologies (of economics in this case) influence and reinforce the production of other ideologies in other areas (in biology, in the case of Darwin). Therefore, the existing social relations produce everyday representations and ideologies which, in turn, influence the reproduction of everyday representations and other ideologies mutually reinforcing, confirming and reinforcing those social relations. And this is the aspect posed by Engels, by placing the return action of Darwinian ideology, implementing social relations in nature, now presented as "natural law" of capitalist society, legitimized, naturalized and universalized. And this is manifested in the exemplary work of Darwin.

Another element of methodological character, is the realization that the evolution of species is related to the soil, that is, the geological changes, as supported by Trémaux and taken up by Marx. This lay in the fact that Darwin's approach could not answer certain questions and provided the evolutionary primacy to the struggle for survival in intra species and not extraespécies as Wallace and Bates (Ferreira, 1990; Viana, 2003). By focusing on the struggle for survival within species - arising from the law of population of Malthus - and according to capitalist competition, the evolutionary mechanism needs a supplement and this was the legacy of the theory of acquired characteristics, especially its design pangenesis, it would not be presented in The Origin of Species, but wrote in a note unfamiliar. What Marx is in Trémaux is a closer analysis of the dialectical method in which concrete is the result of their multiple determinations and not the product of chance, making his work thus more useful than that of Darwin.

The success of "The Origin of Species"

If Darwin had not published his most famous work, The Origin of Species, that significantly change the history of Western culture and the evolution of modern society. After all, "to establish the theory of evolution, Darwin brought wider contribution to date made by a single man" and thus "can indeed be called the Newton of biology" (Huxley, 1960, p. 25 ). However, this type of placement is not justified. Firstly, it is necessary to recognize the existence of several evolutionary concepts before Darwin, although most not as systematic as his, and various other that arose while his (Wallace, Bates) and subsequent ( excluding those born influenced by Darwinism or antagonism with it because it does not exist in this hypothetical situation). It must be clear that many other "theories of evolution" were produced (Marco, 1987; Guyénot, 1955), to break with the false idea expounded by textbooks and biologists with poor training according to which Darwin's theory would be the "final "and" true "or even" unquestionable ". Anyway, the establishment of a conception of hegemony and influential evolution as Darwin could hardly have arisen.

But what is the importance of this work today? Besides the historical value it has taken and its subsequent social influence, the work of Darwin gains importance as an example of ideology of the production process, in the realm of the natural sciences. Now, if the question focuses on the content of his work, then it is necessary to find out what the theory of evolution of Darwin is still alive or what can be considered a lasting contribution and still valid. A balance sheet would be very negative for those of a critical perspective. In this regard, it remains to explain the reasons of the success of this work. We've done this elsewhere (Viana, 2003) and so will hold only a synthesis of this successful process of Darwinian conception and, more specifically, the book The Origin of Species.

The scientific sphere is formed by a group of scientists from various fields and are organized into institutions, founding groups of affinities, create own interests and values, and compete for the right to define what is science and what is the best scientific production in a competition very Darwinian [9]. The process by which Darwin eventually won the fight with competing views is explained by their higher social status to the two main opponents (Wallace and Bates), which brought him financial, influential friends, among other competitive advantages, on the one hand and the largest structure of his work, as well as adaptation to the world of everyday representations and dominant ideologies of his time. With regard to Lamarck, Darwin's work had the distinct competitive advantage to be based on a mechanistic, dominant episteme at the time, while his rival was, as everyone knows, one vitalista:

"The vitalism, so evident in some of its laws, was in opposition to materialism of scientific thought, and pulled out the hope of new knowledge through research on materialistic lines. It is true that some of the biologists were vitalists, especially among the Germans, but the materialism of Physical Science was becoming fashionable and extending to scientists from other groups "(Carter, 1959, p. 33).

Here lies one of the social determinants of scientific thought, which is the hegemony of certain ideas and concepts that end up influencing a whole season. Materialism said above is the mechanistic that at that time, dominated physics, which was the highlight in science in that period.

But beyond the personal benefits and suitability of mechanistic ideology, there was another element that made Darwin's theory more accepted than others: while Wallace and Bates preached a conception of struggle for interspecies survival, that is, between species, He pointed to the intraespécie fighting, i.e., within the same species. Remembering that Marx had already stated that Darwin just executing the transposition of capitalist society to the natural world, so it became more acceptable such a theory and, moreover, still allowed to explain human society itself. The inspiration in the law of Malthus's population was already an explanation in this regard and Darwin, as generalizing the Malthusian thesis, also naturalizes and thus can apply it, back to the human species.

Undoubtedly, many will say that Darwin did not apply his theories to the human world. However, as some have put it, this is not true (Marco, 1987; Viana, 2001; Viana, 2003). In The Origin of Species, Darwin is dealing with a general law and, therefore, applies to particular cases. If the struggle for survival is a general law of evolution, then it applies usually to humans. Darwin himself makes this explicit when discussing the Malthusian conception of struggle for survival due to population growth in geometric progression:

"Any person who, during the natural state of life, produces many eggs or many seeds must be destroyed at any period of its existence, or during any season, because, otherwise, giving up the principle of geometric increase, the number of his descendants would become so remarkable that none could feed the region "(Darwin, 1979, p. 70).

"There is not any exception to the rule that all be arranged to multiply naturally so quickly, and it was not destroyed, the earth would soon be covered by the progeny of a single pair. The man himself, who plays so slowly, would see their number doubled every twenty-five years and, at this rate, in less than a thousand years, there would be enough space on the globe where foot retained "(Darwin 1979: ., 70).

Obviously it's still possible to say that this is not as obvious as well and that the application of Darwinian theories to human society is the product of Social Darwinism. However, on reading the other works of Darwin, such as letters, his autobiography and other productions it is no longer possible to disregard that he is the creator of "social Darwinism", or rather, he is the creator of Darwinism and therefore the application of his ideas to human society. This is more than evident in his work The Origin of Man and Sexual Selection.

The Origin of Species to the Origin of Man

The best known work of Darwin, The Origin of Species, is where he expounds his theory of the struggle for life and survival of the fittest and is the ideological source of his other works, among them, The Descent of Man. Interestingly, the latter did not have the fame and the impact of work dedicated to the ideology of natural selection. Undoubtedly, given that The Origin of Species is widely quoted and acclaimed but little read, even by experts, it would be normal to know that The Origin of Man is very little known and read. However, it was expected that this work had the same impact as the previous one, even by its theme.

In the introduction to The Descent of Man, Darwin confirms our earlier statement. He says he considered it sufficient to have indicated in the Origin of Species that such work "would radiate light on the origin of man and his history" and that "man must be included with the other living beings in any general conclusion is, in terms the appearance so on earth "(Darwin, 1974, p. 11). Unfortunately, for reasons of space, we can not approach this work in detail and therefore only we will make some brief references to the most important aspects of our discussion. The important note is that Darwin applies its design exposed in his great work on the evolution of species to the human case. The theory of natural selection and sexual selection is presented in this work and together with the statement of the thesis observed a number of racist and sexist statements. Here's just an example that our space allows:

"The main distinction in the mental powers of both sexes lies in the fact that man comes before the woman in every action we undertake, it requires a deep thought or reason then, imagination, or merely the use of hands and senses. If there were two groups of men and women who more sobressaíssem in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (be it the composition or performance), history, science and philosophy, there could be no terms of comparison. Based on the average deviation from the law, so well illustrated by Galton in his book Hereditary Genius, we can also conclude that, in many disciplines men are decidedly superior to women, the average mental power of man is superior to the latter "(Darwin , 1974, p. 649).

Thus, Darwin believes that man is superior, of course, his wife and does not hesitate to quote Francis Galton, cousin and main proponent of eugenics, the purification of the race later carried out by the Nazis. Many have denounced Darwin's racism (Marco, 1987; Prenant, 1940). Your racism is evident in his letters, as in addressed to W. Graham in 1881 in which racial prejudice is closely linked with its exposed thesis in The Origin of Species:

"It could discuss and show that natural selection did and does, however, more for the progress of civilization than you are willing to admit. Recalls the danger that ran a few centuries European nations to be overcome by the Turks, and how it looks ridiculous in our day similar idea. Races, most civilized, the Caucasian calls, defeated the Turks completely in the struggle for existence. Glancing around the world, without stopping in the distant future, many inferior races will be promptly eliminated by another who achieved a higher degree of civilization "(Apud. Prenant, 1940, p. 139).

That's why it will also say that he would rather be descended from "wild" than the Apes (Marco, 1987; Darwin, 1974). Anyway, the man is not descended from monkeys, but the "barbarians" (Darwin, 1974; George, 1985), ie similar to those of native Indian tribes. The thought of Darwin, beyond racism and sexism, shows its indissoluble link with the dominant values ​​and ideas, which has been transposed into their biological theses. Behold the work of Darwin not only carries the "spirit of the age" is a man of his time but also does so in a certain way, because not all of that time were racist and sexist let alone produced supposedly scientific theories that reinforce such prejudices. A thinker only has value if it is bold, if you dare to tell the truth, even if it is unpopular or against the dominant ideas, otherwise nothing more than an ideologue. Thus, The Origin of Species is that neither the "Emperor's New Clothes": everyone praises, but no one really sees. But the reason is not the blindness of the eyes, but something far worse: the limited mind by social relations, hypocrisy, pressure, convenience or social censorship, making it unable to transcend their limited social and historical condition and say that the invisible clothes Emperor is a scam. Hence the production of thinkers who do not think as they should think. As many as Darwin.

Notes

* Professor at the Federal University of Goiás; Doctor in Sociology from UNB and author of several books.

[1] "It is said that Marx admired Darwin's work, to the point of having asked to preface one of the volumes of his greatest work, Capital. Of course, the application would have been refused "(Marco, 1987, p. 75).

[2] As is attributed to Marx and Engels, without any justification or evidence for the ideological thesis of "inheritance of acquired characteristics": "Marx and Engels opposed the concept of the organic world development the decisive role of the environment, the conditions of material life in the development of organisms. Developing the theory of dependence on external conditions of organisms, the living conditions, Marx and Engels pointed out the possibility of adaptation of organisms to the changing environment and the inheritance of acquired characters. They stressed that the change of hereditary qualities under the influence of the environment was an inescapable fact. These conclusions of Marx and Engels were confirmed and developed by biological theory Mitchurine "(Fataliev, 1966, p. 63). Also the "case Lysenko" and the "case Vavilov" were expressions of Soviet policy changes from Stalinism and the interests of the USSR, promoting a misappropriation of the works of Marx and Engels, which today is the object of controversy, misunderstanding and misunderstandings, as are the Buican (1987).

[3] Even under the influence of Engels, his daughter Eleanor Marx and Edward Avelling, admirer and author of texts and books on Darwin (up to argue that this was an atheist, contrary to the intentions of the author himself of the Origin of Species ).

[4] The reading of the letter, which did not quote for reasons of space, clearly shows that it is not the capital, but a text that addresses the very work of Darwin and conducts direct attacks to religion, the latter element to reason Darwin's refusal, as would cause displeasure "to some members of my family" (quoted. Montalenti, 1984).

[5] "It is likely that Marx and Engels have treated Darwinism, in public, with great discretion due to three factors. As it was under attack from very conservative sectors, such as the Church, they may not want to find themselves mistaken for them. Secondly, it would be necessary to carry out the critical proposing an alternative evolutionary mechanism. Engels tried but could not but send some very general opinions. The radical critique would be misunderstood, as if the idea of ​​evolution was also mistaken. Finally, it is likely that some aspects of the theory were considered important or strategic: the idea that even nature had a change of engine, that there was a fundamental contradiction in nature, similar to class struggle "(Marco, 1987, p 76. -77). Here it is made clear that the criticism of Darwinism is not related to the existence of evolution of species but the mechanism for this evolution, the struggle for life and survival of the fittest, through natural selection via inheritance of acquired characteristics. There have been several other theories of evolution and more fruitful than that of Darwin.

[6] The radical critique of Marx to Malthus and his theory of population totally opposed to the abstract and bourgeois conception of the English economist, makes it clear what it means linking Darwin and Malthus (Marx, 1985; Viana, 2006).

[7] A third element would be the non-recognition by Darwin of the existence of "sudden changes", the "dialectical leap" (Prenant, 1940), which, however, is conceivable only in a metaphysical dialectic and pseudomarxista founded in laws such as originally developed by Engels and perfected by Lenin, Stalin and followers, but far from the thinking of Marx and Marxist tendencies that have not abandoned the essence of dialectics.

[8] Here we must highlight the actual difference between Marx and Engels, in all respects, including political and in relation to the dialectic, but especially, in this case, with respect to the case of Darwinism. Marx had a far more critical stance on Darwin, hence the divergence between the two in the controversy regarding Pierre Trémaux and the fact that it was Engels who sent letter excited to Marx about the release of The Origin of Species, and the answer Marx took about a year. The position of both on Darwinism had differences, and Engels more favorable to Darwin than Marx. Despite criticism of Marx, Engels will defend Darwin similar criticisms made by Düring (Engels, 1979) in 1878 and will take a more critical tone later, in 1883 (Engels, 1985) whose base was already in the letters of Marx and visible contradiction with the previous book, and statements that criticized in Düring are taken up, although the rise was Marx. Undoubtedly, the reason must have been the controversy with Düring, but shows a lack of rigor and consistency. The root of the difference is in the radicalism of Marx and the fact that his work is theoretical expression of the proletariat, which made it not so influenced by the development of natural sciences and the success of certain ideologies, as was Engels.

[9] Bourdieu's work (1984) on the "scientific field" becomes relevant here as long as it exceeds your reproductivism and realize that beyond intercientíficas struggles there are also class struggle and this overrides that.

References

Bauer, Otto. Marxismo y Etica. In: Kautsky, Karl. Etica y Concepción Materialista de La História. 2ª edição, México, PYP, 1980.

Bourdieu, Pierre. O Campo Científico. In: Ortiz, Renato (org.). Bourdieu. 2ª edição, São Paulo, Ática, 1994.

Buican, Denis. Darwin e o Darwinismo. Rio de Janeiro, Jorge Zahar, 1987.

Carter, G. S. Cem Anos de Evolução. A Verdade Sobre o Darwinismo. São Paulo, Ibrasa, 1959.

Darwin, Charles. A Origem das Espécies. São Paulo, Hemus, 1979.

__________. A Origem do Homem e a Seleção Sexual. São Paulo, Hemus, 1974.

Engels, Friedrich. A Dialética da Natureza. 4ª edição, Rio de Janeiro, Paz e Terra, 1985.

Engels, Friedrich. Anti-Düring. 3ª edição, Rio de Janeiro, Paz e Terra, 1979.

Fataliev, K. O Materialismo Dialético e as Ciências da Natureza. Rio de Janeiro, Zahar, 1966.

Ferreira, Ricardo. Bates, Darwin, Wallace e a Teoria da Evolução. Brasília, Edunb, 1990.

Fromm, Erich. Conceito Marxista do Homem. 8ª edição, Rio de Janeiro, Zahar, 1983.

George, Wilma. As Idéias de Darwin. São Paulo, Cultrix, 1975.

Guyénot, Emile. A Origem das Espécies. Lisboa, Europa-América, 1955.

Huxley, Julian. O Pensamento Vivo de Darwin. São Paulo, Martins, 1960.

Kautsky, Karl. Etica y Concepción Materialista de La História. 2ª edição, México, PYP, 1980.

Mannheim, Karl. Sociologia do Conhecimento. Lisboa, Rés, 1990.

Marco, Nélio. O Que é Darwinismo. São Paulo, Brasiliense, 1987.

Marx, Karl e engels, Friedrich. A Ideologia Alemã (Feuerbach). 2ª edição, São Paulo, Hucitec, 2002.

Marx, Karl. Elementos Fundamentales Para La Crítica de la Economia Política (Grundrisse). v. 2, 10. ed. México: Siglo Veintiuno, 1985.

Mehring, Franz. Etica Socialista. In: Kautsky, Karl. Etica y Concepción Materialista de La História. 2ª edição, México, PYP, 1980.

Montalenti, Giuseppe. Charles Darwin. Lisboa, Edições 70, 1984.

Morris, Desmond. O Macaco Nu – Um Estudo do Animal Humano. 9ª edição, Rio de Janeiro, Record, 1980.

Pannekoek, Anton. Marxism and Darwinism. In: http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1912/marxism-darwinism.htm Acessado em 28 de março de 2009.

Prenant, Marcel. Darwin. México, Ediciones Quetzal, 1940.

Viana, Nildo. A Teoria da População em Marx. Boletim Goiano de Geografia. UFG, v. 26, n. 2, jul.dez./2006.

__________. Darwin e a Competição na Comunidade Científica. Fragmentos de Cultura. Ifiteg/UCG, V. 13, n. 1, jan/fev. 2003.

__________. Darwinismo e Ideologia. Pós – Revista Brasiliense de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Sociais. UnB. Brasília, ano 5, n. 5, dez. 2001.

__________. Escritos Metodológicos de Marx. Goiânia, Alternativa, 2007.

__________. Universo Psíquico e Reprodução do Capital. São Paulo, Escuta, 2008.

Wright Mills, C. Poder e Política. Rio de Janeiro, Zahar, 1971.